"NHS at breaking point, and broken"

[misterdog]

The sooner we get the man in the street to see the Tory lies, the sooner it can be fixed.

350million a week from Brexit for the NHS?

Though we have some £ 5.5 billion to pay to the EU this year as part of the 'divorce' settlement, the man in the street should be aware of all the facts.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8039/

Payments continue until 2064.

 

[farfromthesun]

Was a nice idea in 1948 but just doesn’t work in this day and age.
Too many people, longer life expectancy and new, ever more expensive treatments etc.
Literally a bottomless hole.

To fund it, and the required elderly social care that needs to go with it, to the standards / turnaround time people would like would mean massive tax rises. And even if they did that and say doubled the budget I doubt it would make that much difference day to day.

It was "working" a mere 12 years ago.

What happened in between?

 

[Seanm]

Was a nice idea in 1948 but just doesn’t work in this day and age.
Too many people, longer life expectancy and new, ever more expensive treatments etc.
Literally a bottomless hole.

To fund it, and the required elderly social care that needs to go with it, to the standards / turnaround time people would like would mean massive tax rises. And even if they did that and say doubled the budget I doubt it would make that much difference day to day.

It's not a bottomless hole it's just that as an economy develops and becomes more productive, healthcare and other public services appear to make up more and more of it, because they're not subject to the same kind of efficiency savings as other sectors. But a more productive economy means more money overall. It's not a question of there not being enough money but of where it's going. There'd be plenty of money to pay for high quality care for all if we just stopped e.g. piping it directly into the offshore tax havens of astronomically wealthy ****s. It's purely a matter of political will. I don't know why anyone who's not part of the club would think that cosseting the rich is essential and inevitable, but providing ordinary people with good quality care is an unaffordable luxury. Madness.

 

[ks.234]

Was a nice idea in 1948 but just doesn’t work in this day and age.
Too many people, longer life expectancy and new, ever more expensive treatments etc.
Literally a bottomless hole.

To fund it, and the required elderly social care that needs to go with it, to the standards / turnaround time people would like would mean massive tax rises. And even if they did that and say doubled the budget I doubt it would make that much difference day to day.

So we would be better off biting the bullet and selling off the NHS. There is no alternative?

 

[misterdog]

It was "working" a mere 12 years ago.

What happened in between?

In 2020 the World Economic Forum ranked the UK as the second best prepared country to deal with a pandemic...

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/02/these-are-the-countries-best-prepared-for-health-emergencies/

So all these charts and statistics can be bandied about to show both success and failure at the same time.

Choosing which 'one' to highlight depends on peoples political viewpoint in my opinion.

 

[PsB]

In 2020 the World Economic Forum ranked the UK as the second best prepared country to deal with a pandemic...

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/02/these-are-the-countries-best-prepared-for-health-emergencies/

So all these charts and statistics can be bandied about to show both success and failure at the same time.

Choosing which 'one' to highlight depends on peoples political viewpoint in my opinion.

If that's the case, how come the top 2 countries in that list, both rich, developed countries, lost so many people to COVID? The US performance has been particularly shocking: 1.1 million deaths in the world's biggest economy, and one of its richest. Could it be that the WEF folk are not best placed to assess the quality of a health system and its ability to absorb pandemic shocks? Or is it that the indicators they use are skewed away from patient health? The whole ranking seems bizarre.

 

[misterdog]

But a more productive economy means more money overall.

Though UK productivity is 20% below that of the US, and well below that of France and Germany.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.u...n 2021, ranked on GDP,around 20% below the US.

 

[misterdog]

If that's the case, how come the top 2 countries in that list, both rich, developed countries, lost so many people to COVID?

Precisely my point, don't always believe what you are fed.

Most 'information' has a political bias or is underinformed. One of the best examples I have seen recently was regarding the recent exchange rates of Sterling versus the Dollar.
Social media and the media generally blamed the fall, all on Liz Truss, yet that would not account for the slump in both the Japanese Yen and the Euro versus the Dollar.

Could it actually have been more due to the strength of the Dollar and L.T's incompetence was merely an aggravating factor.

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/strong-dollar/

This chart is another case in point.

The countries are shown alphabetically.

Our healthy lives ranking is 10th worst out of 11.
Our spending per capita is 10th worst out of 11.
Despite spending way more than double that of ours, the USA 'rankings' are the worst of the 11 overall. Apart from expenditure....

This chart dated after 13 years of Labour party rule.
Yet clearly shows we had the best healthcare of the 11 nations shown ? ?

Must be correct, it's on the internet.

 

[stevec67]

Because in a thread about the NHS you said:

The UK need to stop giving money away like confetti , Another 50 million given away a week ago , We don't have the money that's being given away the UK gouverment are borrowing it

And re ending the NHS you said:

Yes indeed it is my opinion , Time to think of the UK in these dire times.I assume you would like to continue giving away millions we don't have and let your children / Grandchildred pick up the ever increasing bill.

And when I talk about the probable consequences of this on people who are ill you say:

Err ? Can't see what that has to do with the UK constantly giving money away outside the UK , The money should be used in the UK for the essential services.

Where did this bit come from? The NHS *IS* an essential service, within the UK. I am not talking about "giving money away outside the UK", I'm talking about the UK NHS. Here in the UK.

 

[PsB]

Precisely my point, don't always believe what you are fed.

Most 'information' has a political bias or is underinformed. One of the best examples I have seen recently was regarding the recent exchange rate of Sterling versus the Dollar.
Social media and the media generally blamed the fall, all on Liz Truss, yet that would not account for the slump in both the Japanese Yen and the Euro versus the Dollar.

Could it actually have been more due to the strength of the Dollar and L.T's incompetence was merely an aggravating factor.

Yes, that was a combination of the dollar strengthening against all currencies (risk on, Fed action on interest rates), which the Truss government's incompetence then compounded in a unique and specific way. IOW, the Euro dropping against the dollar doesn't remove the fact that Sterling dropped versus the Euro right after Kwarteng's not-so-mini budget brainfart.

 

[Seanm]

Though UK productivity is 20% below that of the US, and well below that of France and Germany.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02791/#:~:text=In 2021, ranked on GDP,around 20% below the US.

Sure, but what of it? The reasons for Britain's poor economic performance are well understood and again, purely political: it's addressable, it doesn't preclude proper funding of public services - Britain is still a rich country - and starving public services still further is not going to help.

 

[davidsrsb]

If that's the case, how come the top 2 countries in that list, both rich, developed countries, lost so many people to COVID? The US performance has been particularly shocking: 1.1 million deaths in the world's biggest economy, and one of its richest. Could it be that the WEF folk are not best placed to assess the quality of a health system and its ability to absorb pandemic shocks? Or is it that the indicators they use are skewed away from patient health? The whole ranking seems bizarre.

Malaysia with 35 million population has a credible total of 36,000 deaths so far - a middle income economy
Singapore managed just 1,703 deaths

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

Was a nice idea in 1948 but just doesn’t work in this day and age.
Too many people, longer life expectancy and new, ever more expensive treatments etc.
Literally a bottomless hole.

To fund it, and the required elderly social care that needs to go with it, to the standards / turnaround time people would like would mean massive tax rises. And even if they did that and say doubled the budget I doubt it would make that much difference day to day.

Actually, raising our tax levels to being similar to well-developed economies in Europe would make a big improvement. As would ridding the NHS of all the kinds of stealth-privatisations, outsourcings, etc, that *Tory* policy have generated by stealth.

Obvious eg: Holding down NHS-employed pay and conditions for nurses, etc, so they go to 'outsourcing' companies and trusts have to pay far more per hour for them as not only the people get better pay but the company creams off more on top. Often then going to USA, etc, companies and tax dodgers overseas. Which does us more economic harm because it makes our trade balance worse.

What isn't 'affordable' in a modern economy is to have many people too ill to work because they can't get timely and full treatment. Thus we lumber our enconomy in order to feed profits to tax dodging companies and their owners.

This has been documented over and over and over again by PE ad naus. If people live longer and are healthy because treated and cared for when its needed they can be *productive* for longer. They become a 'load' because of not getting suitable treatment or care. Being over 70 doesn't mean we all become drains.

 

[ks.234]

The sooner we get the man in the street to see the Tory lies, the sooner it can be fixed.

350million a week from Brexit for the NHS?
40 new hospitals?

The biggest lie is the one that says There Is No Alternative.

Depressing how so many people believe that one too

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

Sure, but what of it? The reasons for Britain's poor economic performance are well understood and again, purely political: it's addressable, it doesn't preclude proper funding of public services - Britain is still a rich country - and starving public services still further is not going to help.

Indeed. And funding them more appropriately can *improve* our economic performance. At present it is largely run to benefit tax dodging companies that suck much of the money out of it. cf PE ad. naus.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

Add in to posting 33:

That student nurses now have to *pay* to be 'trained' as they work on the wards, etc. Whereas in the past they got a grant.

Note that many nurses now simply give up their job because it is too demanding to cover the lack of staff and the pay and conditions are bad.

Much the same, that, as in the 'care' sector.... which due to its *Tory arranged* flaws is ultra-expensive and not well integrated with the NHS.

What bothers me is that PE and others have been documenting this for many years, and it still gets ignored as if it isn't happening. Nurses may be seen as 'angels' but that doesn't excuse assuming they don't need to eat, live somewhere, take a break, etc, or even have a life of their own outside work.

 

[stevec67]

This has been documented over and over and over again by PE ad naus. If people live longer and are healthy because treated and cared for when its needed they can be *productive* for longer. They become a 'load' because of not getting suitable treatment or care. Being over 70 doesn't mean we all become drains.

Quite. Both my parents are over 75. They are no longer working but thanks to lifetime investment in pension investments they both still pay tax. A decent income means that they still use goods and services and so contribute to the economy that way.

 

[Sonority]

It's ideologically driven, it's a simple process. Break the previously working system to the point where people start to die, and at that point the wealthy and middle class will start paying for private treatment. The poor and elderly will die off, and after a while the population will become resigned to the fact that you either have insurance, pay for it otherwise, or put up with a second class service. It's already happened with dentistry.

Hearing is next - already mostly given to 'spec savers' - although still currently funded via the NHS budget (at what cost?)
Something as simple as having your ears syringed - now not available at GP surgeries for the most part, costs £60 a pop at private clinics now.

 

[farfromthesun]

In 2020 the World Economic Forum ranked the UK as the second best prepared country to deal with a pandemic...

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/02/these-are-the-countries-best-prepared-for-health-emergencies/

So all these charts and statistics can be bandied about to show both success and failure at the same time.

Choosing which 'one' to highlight depends on peoples political viewpoint in my opinion.

If you look at the sources on the chart that I've posted, they're quite varied and not partisan.

As for being well prepared for something (the Pandemic) - we may well have been, but you still need a competent performance at crunchtime. I am very well prepared when I go fishing, but I don't catch much.

By the way, if you're somehow trying to suggest that the Tories haven't royally ****ed the NHS through their cruel ideology over the past 12 years then I'd argue you're trying to defend the complete opposite of what is clear in the statistics and peoples lived experiences, because of your own political viewpoint.

 

[misterdog]

your own political viewpoint.

I'm neutral, I see failure from both political parties, and have no political church.
Philosophically I'm a socialist, but I'm also a realist.

My life goes back to the decade before Thatcher when we had the Labour winter of discontent resulting in the need to be bailed out by the IMF. (though some will look back and say 'they started it,it was like that when we found it'). I guess that's why some love politics.

I looked at both those decades and asked myself if one was better than the other. - not in my opinion.
If we had PR I would probably vote green, though where I am geographically there is little point in voting without PR.

Anyway enough of my political bias, back to on topic.
The NHS was improved under Tony Blair, including a new Renal outpatient unit where I live and have benefitted from.
The problem is we are still paying for those improvements until 2050 as they were funded by the NHS credit card under PFI.

Though as we are still paying the bank failure debt, the Covid debt and now the energy/inflation debt, I can see no window of opportunity to load up the NHS credit card again. Especially during a 'world' recession which we have no idea yet how deep/long it may last.

The only solution I see for a better health service is higher taxes.

Then the social care system,which is impacting on the health service is also at breaking point.
Because there are insufficient care beds,hospital beds are full.

My 93 year old mother is currently in a care home which is costing 'her' over £ 1000 per week.
Though the cost of an NHS bed is over £ 2000 per week.